TrueLife - The Strategy of Warfare in Relationships Part 1: Influence, Tactics & Emotional Mastery

Episode Date: September 28, 2020

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door. Use Promocode TRUELIFE for Get 25% off monthly or 30% off the annual plan For the first yearhttps://www.district216.com/Transcript:https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/53206294Speaker 0 (0s): Good. Speaker 1 (15s): Welcome to this show. Everybody how's everybody feeling out their, you have a good weekend. He get some things done. You walk out in the yard a little bit, hang out with the family, go to the beach, or have a barbecue. What did you guys do? Well, whatever it was a hope you enjoyed it. It's the moment you get to spend with your family and loved ones. It's the moments like that, that you'll remember, and that the people in your family role remember. So remember that make the most of your time with the people you love. We want to jump into a series today. I think you're all going to enjoy. I know I enjoy it. That is how we can apply military Strategy to our daily lives. Can we look back to some of the great battles in history and use the strategies on the battlefield that were implemented by these generals into our linguistic structure, into our daily lives in a two are relationships? I think the answer is yes. And I also think once you hear this episode that you will think the same thing, I'm going to go over a few points here. I'm going to go over some of Germany. Strategy in the second world war. Talk about some revolutionary techniques. They used the effects of those techniques, and then I'm going to get some commentary on how those affects can be used in your life. So without any further of my yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. Without any further of that, let's dig right in here. The course of Germany's campaigns before and after the outbreak of actual war in 1939, provided a most striking demonstration of an indirect approach. He gave the technique of an indirect approach, a new extension, logistically psychologically, both in the field and in the forum later, the Germans gave up their opponents ample opportunity to exploit the indirect approach against them. It is wise in war, not to underrate your opponents. It is equally important to understand his methods and his mind works. Such understanding is the necessary foundation of a successful effort to foresee and forestall his moods. The peaceful power suffered a lot from missing the bus, through their slowness to gauge what Hitler would next attempt an Asian made a profit a lot. If the adversary Oregon's of government include it in army department, I'm sorry, an enemy department. We already have an army department covering all spheres of war and studying the problems of the war from the enemy's point of view so that in this state of detachment, it might succeed in predicting what was likely to do next. And there's a lot there. So let's dissect this part. It is wise and more not to underrate your opponents. I think that goes well beyond just war that goes into the heart of any type of relationship that could be adversarial, be it a debate, be it a friendly, joking, be it a relationship with someone you love, be it a business partner or a business that you are competing with. It is equally important to understand his methods and how his mind works. I think this is something that could be taught to kids in school. They're should be in my mind. I think that there should be a strategic life-course, you know, throughout at least when I went to school, though, it was always math and English and science, kind of the core, the core products of schooling. I I think you would be a good idea to add strategy to that particular whom room coarse, you know, financial Strategy as well as relationships Strategy in a lot of what we were talking about here, these points would be applied to both of those. For example, Speaker 2 (5m 16s): It is, Speaker 1 (5m 16s): It is equally important to understand his methods and how his mind works. I think if any of us take time to really get to know someone thinking about your best friend or a family member, do you understand the methods they use to get where they're going? Do you understand the plan's they have, do you understand how their mind works, maybe for your family and for your best friend, maybe even for a group of people that are in your community or even your culture. However, once you step outside your culture, once you step outside your neighborhood, all of a sudden the world gets pretty big. And so does the methodology which people use in order to attain their goals. The previous podcast had a lot to do with this about utilizing or processing language and the left and right hemispheres of the brain. It's so fascinating to me to think about strategic moves on the battlefield and strategic ways to wage war. Because I think the majority of relationships we have at times are adversarial sure. Understanding is the necessary foundation of a successful effort to foresee and forestall his moves So in any type of debate, in any type of game, be a football, basketball, wrestling, whatever it is, this is such good advice. Let's just hit the three points again, never underwrite your opponents, do your due diligence. It's important to understand their methods and how they think Understanding the foundation of your campaign. Kind of pre-gaming. What do you want to do will help you foresee and forestall the move of the person with whom you're debating or fighting or at war with As far as a nation might profit a lot. If the adversary Oregon's of government included an in an enemy department, I think you see a lot of that. Now in corporate America, they call it red teaming and it can be a successful strategy that you can implement in your life. It's a good way to teach your children about Strategy and how to be successful and how to think things through critically. You know, if you're sitting at the dinner table, regardless of what your dinner table conversation is, you could introduce a new game called red teaming. Were you, and one of your kids and your wife and the other child, you could debate topics. It's a pretty good idea and can be fun to sit down at a dinner table and have a debate and understand that the idea of the debate is not to hurt the other person. The idea of the debate is to solve a problem. However, as long as everyone at the table is fair game, I think it's a good strategy to try and use different techniques and know that way you can help go over your logical fallacies and why they're wrong and why they're Right. However, this is all stemming from, you know, strategic thinking, strategic, which ultimately is kind of a form of warfare. So let's jump right back in here in to the book, nothing, they seem more strange to the future historian than the way that the government of the democracies failed to anticipate the course with which Hitler would pursue four Never has a man of such immense ambition. So clearly disclosed before hand, both the general process and particular methods by which he was seeking to fulfill it. Mine confe together with his speeches and other utterances provided abundant clues to his direction and sequence of actions. If the amazingl...

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Heirous through ruins maze, lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Seraphini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Well, welcome to the show everybody. How's everybody feeling out there? You have a good weekend, you get some things done, you work out in the yard a little bit. hang out with the family, go to the beach, have a barbecue. What did you guys do? Well, whatever it was, I hope you enjoyed it. It's the moment you get to spend with your family and loved ones.

It's the moments like that that you'll remember and that the people in your family will remember. So remember that. Make the most of your time with the people you love. I want to jump into a series today. you're all going to enjoy. I know I enjoy it. That is how we can apply military strategy to our daily lives. Can we look back to some of the great battles in history and use the strategies on the battlefield that were implemented by these generals into our linguistic structure, into our daily lives and into our relationships. I think the answer is yes. And I also think, once you hear this episode,

that you will think the same thing. We're going to go over a few points here. We're going to go over some of Germany's strategy in the Second World War. Talk about some revolutionary techniques they used the effects of those techniques and then I am going to give some commentary on how those effects can be used in your life

so without any further of my yapping yap yap yap yap yap yap yep yep yep that let's dig right in here the course of Germany's campaigns before and after the outbreak of actual war in 1939

provided a most striking demonstration of an indirect approach. He gave the technique of an indirect approach a new extension, logistically, psychologically, both in the field and in the forum. Later, the Germans gave their opponents ample opportunity to exploit the indirect approach against them. It is wise in war not to underrate your opponents. It is equally important to understand his methods and how his mind works. Such understanding is the necessary foundation of a successful effort to foresee and forestall

his moves. The peaceful powers suffered a lot from missing the bus through their slowness to engage what Hitler would next attempt. A nation might profit a lot if the adversary organs of government included an army department. I'm sorry, an enemy department. We already have an army department. Covering all spheres of war and studying the problems of the war from the enemy's point of view so that in this state of detachment, it might succeed in.

predicting what was likely to do next. Okay, there's a lot there. So let's dissect this part. It is wise in war not to underrate your opponents. I think that goes well beyond just war. That goes into the heart of any type of relationship that could be adversarial, be it a debate, be it friendly, joking, be it a relationship with someone you love. love, be it a business partner or a business that you are competing with. It is equally important to understand his methods and how his mind works. I think this is something that could be taught to kids in school. There should be, in my mind, I think that there should be a strategic life course. You know, throughout, at least when I went to school, there was always math and English and science, kind of the

core products of schooling. I think it would be a good idea to add strategy to that particular homeroom course. You know, financial strategy as well as relationship strategy. And a lot of what we're talking about here, these points would be applied to both of those. For example, it is equally important to understand his methods and how his mind works. I think if any of us take time to really get to know someone, think about your best friend or a family member. Do you understand the methods they use to get where they're going? Do you understand the plans they have?

Do you understand how their mind works? Maybe for your family and for your best friend. Maybe even for a group of people that are in your community or even your culture. However, once you step outside your culture, once you step outside your neighborhood, all of a sudden, the world gets pretty big. And so does the methodology which people use in order to attain their goals. The previous podcast had a lot to do with this about utilizing or processing language in the left and right hemispheres of the brain. it's so fascinating to me to think about strategic moves on the battlefield and strategic ways to wage war because I think the majority of relationships we have at times are adversarial.

Such understanding is the necessary foundation of a successful effort to foresee and forestall his moves. So in any type of debate, in any type of game, be it football, basketball, wrestling, whatever it is, this is such good advice. Let's just hit the three points again. Never underrate your opponents. Do your due diligence. It's important to understand their methods and how they think. Understanding the foundation of your campaign, kind of pre-gaming what you want to do, will help you foresee and forestall the moves of the person with whom you're debating or fighting or at war with. As far as a nation might profit a lot if the adversary organs of government included an enemy department. I think you see a lot of that now in corporate America.

They call it red teaming. And it can be a successful strategy that you can implement in your life. it's a good way to teach your children about strategy and how to be successful and how to think things through critically. You know, if you're sitting at the dinner table, regardless of what your dinner table conversation is you could introduce a new game called red teaming where you and one of your kids and your wife and the other child, you could debate topics. It's a pretty good idea and can be fun to sit down to the dinner table and have a debate

and understand that the idea of the debate is not to hurt the other person. The idea of the debate is to solve a problem. However, as long as everyone at the table is fair game, I think it's a good strategy to try and use different techniques. And that way you can help go over your logical fallacies and why they're wrong and why they're right. However, this is all stemming from, you know, strategic thinking, strategic conversations, which ultimately is kind of a form of warfare. So let's jump right back in here into the book.

Nothing may seem more strange to the future historian than the way that the government of the democracies failed to anticipate the course with which Hitler would pursue. for never has a man of such immense ambition so clearly disclosed beforehand, both the general process and particular methods by which he was seeking to fulfill it. Mind conf, together with his speeches and other utterances, provided abundant clues to his direction and sequence of action. If the amazingly clear self-revelation of how his mind worked, is the best evidence that what he achieved was not a matter of accident nor of mere opportunism.

It is also the clearest confirmation of the proverbial saying, What fools men are? Even Napoleon did not show such contempt disregard for his opponents and for the risks of unveiling his intentions. that there's apparent carelessness in this respect showed a realization that men easily miss what is right under their eye that concealment can often be found in the obvious and that in some cases the most direct approach can become the least expected just as the art of secrecy lies in being so open about most things that the few things that matter are not even suspected to exist. Let me highlight a few points right here.

The realization that men easily miss what is right under their eye, that concealment can often be found in the obvious, and that in some cases the most direct approach can become the least expected. that is a very powerful statement in a very powerful psychological maneuver. It's the old, hey, look at this hand, but not in that hand. For my boxing friends out there, you'll remember Sugar Ray Leonard. Remember he'd do that bolo punch where he'd wind up one arm and then smack him with the other one? It's just the art of misdirection.

It's talking about something right in front of someone. And doing it in a way, that the person thinks, well, that can't be true. They wouldn't tell me right to my face, would they? It's so absurd that it couldn't be true. And that's the very reason people do it. It's almost like, if there's some aspects of COVID right now that is just so absurd, right? If you look at, have you guys seen the event 201 where they pre-gamed? They, a lot like we talked about in the last paragraph, they kind of red-teamed it. You know, they had a full-scale war game on the COVID. It's called Event 201. If you haven't looked it up, go online on YouTube and just Google Event 201.

And it'll show you everything that's happening with COVID. Like, they've already tried it. They've pre-gamed it to see what it'll work. And it's kind of fascinating. I think that that is a good example because it encompasses both a lot of what we talked about the realization that men easily miss what is right under their eye the concealment can often be found in the obvious and that in some cases the most direct approach can become the least expected moving back laurence of arabia remarked of linen that he was the only man who had thought out a revolution carried it out and consolidated that observation can be applied also to Hitler, with the addition that he had written it out. It is clear, too, that he had profited by studying the methods of the Bolshevik revolution,

not only in gaining power, but in extending it. It was Lenin who enunciated the axiom that the soundest strategy in war is to postpone operations, until the moral disintegration of the enemy renders the delivery of the mortal blow both possible and easy. Let's listen to that axiom again. The soundest strategy in war is to postpone operations until the moral disintegration of the enemy renders the delivery of the mortal blow both possible and easy. This is something that has been going on for. a long time. If you look at the United States strategy or China strategy or any of the big players

on the world stage, if you look at what they normally do when they go into a third world country, you know, let's take what we did recently in Venezuela or what we have done to a lot of countries in the Middle East or even Russia or North Korea. Our first move is usually to place sanctions on right and the the idea of sanctions is to you know morally disintegrate them right you want to you want to render the enemy morally ruined you want them demoralized you want them to have problems with their money you want them to have you want them to be somewhat scared and in panic right you just don't go and bring your army over there and line them up and rush them. Right?

That's what a lot. Remember the movies where they were just storming the beaches at Normandy and just getting mowed down? Like that particular type of warfare is in the past. Now the first thing you want to do is soften up the target. I think it's so relevant to today as well. If you look at what's happening to our country in the U.S., I think you could make a pretty good argument that whether it's been through subversion or planned or whatever it is,

I think you can make a really good argument that we're being demoralized right now. The fact that we're bringing up, you know, how horrible Americans are for slavery. And it's all, hey, it's you listening to this, man. You're a horrible person because slavery. Can't believe you did. Why did you do that? Why did you do it? It's all your fault.

Everybody knows it was you. You know, like you can't blame the entire. nation for something that happened that long ago. I don't think it's, I think it's morally reprehensible. However, where does the money come from for people to go out and riot like that? You know, why is it that there's a lot of people talking about people setting those fires? By the way, did you guys see Joe Rogan had to go out and apologize for saying on his show that potentially there were Antifa member setting fires in Oregon.

It's kind of interesting. If you want to check that out, you should look at Joey Diaz making fun of them. It's pretty funny. Okay, back here to the book of what we got going on here. There is a marked resemblance between this and Hitler saying that our real wars will, in fact, all be fought before military operations begin. In Raushing's account of a discussion on the subject in Hitler speaks, he declared how to achieve the moral breakdown of the enemy before the war has started.

That is the problem that interests me. Whoever has experienced war at the front will want to refrain from all avoidable bloodshed. In concentrating on that problem, Hitler diverged from the, the orthodox trend of German military thought, which for a century had concentrated on battle and had led most of the other nations along the same narrow path of military theory, accepting the Prussian philosopher of war von Klauschwitz, which we've done some stuff on, you should check it out. As their master, they blindly swallowed his undigested aphorisms, such as the bloody solution of the crisis, the effort for the destruction of the enemy's forces,

is the first-born son of war. Only great and general battles can produce great results. Blood is the price of victory. Let us not hear of generals who conquer without bloodshed. Klauschwitz rejected the idea that there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy, without great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the art of war. He dismissed it as a notion born in the imagination of philanthropists. He took no account of the fact that it might be dictated by enlightened self-interest,

by the desire of an issue profitable to the nation, not merely a gladiatorial decision. The outcome of his teaching applied by unthinking disciples was to incite generals to seek battle at the first opportunity. Instead of creating an advantageous opportunity, thereby the art of war was reduced in 1914 and 1918 to a process of mutual mass slaughter. So something interesting is happening here. As you follow along in this book or on this particular chapter that we're starting with, you're seeing the ever. evolution of battlefield tactics. So 1914 and 1918, you had, you know, think about these people just lining up and having this mass battles and going and slaughtering people. What we're about to get into is the way that Hitler and the Germans were able to move so quickly and have so many wins

with such a smaller force. But I think it's important to understand the evolution of battle and war theory as we move along here. Whatever the limit of his light, Hitler at least transcended these conventional bounds. Raushing quotes him as saying, People have killed only when they could not achieve their aim in other ways. There is a broadened strategy with intellectual weapons. Why should I demoralize the enemy by military means if I can do so better and more cheaply in other ways? Our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within to conquer him through himself.

Okay, now let's think about how that particular line of dialogue and strategy can be used in today's world as far as. Our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within to conquer him through himself. When I think of that particular strategy and those words, I think a subversion. I think of this strategy on an overt scale would be censorship. However, on a much more fine-tuned scale, it would be self-censorship, right? And that's the art of political correctness. That's the art of the gender pronouns. That's the art of, you know, peer pressure, usually in academic circles where people are,

are not supposed to say certain things. And so they don't say things and they self-censor themselves. And what they're doing is when you self-censor, when you self-censor, you're actually training yourself to think a certain way. And it's much more effective on you. It's much more effective on the group than having an overt censorship. it's pretty common for POWs that were captured in Vietnam or by the communists that they would be subjected to techniques like this where they'd be captured and then they

would be asked to write a letter to the U.S. government saying they didn't agree with why they were there. It would start out very simple. Like look, they starve them, they beat them and they'll look, will give you some fruit if you just write this letter that says you don't agree with some of the things. And it was this slow rollout, just this, you know, this incremental approach. And then finally, you know, you had people like John McCain that were just, you know, unfortunately, just telling on everybody and, and I can't imagine what he was susceptible to. But that was the outcome of what happened to him. It started off slow. And then by the end, he was, you know, giving up all that he could.

And that's another thing to think about torture. Like, you're probably going, regardless of how strong you think you are. When it comes to torture, you're going to tell people whatever they want. But let's move on forward. The extent to which Hitler gave a new direction and wider meaning to the German doctrine of war may best be seen by comparing his theory with that of General Ludendorff. the director of Germany's war effort in the last war, and Hitler's former associate in the abortive 1923 project

to seize control of Germany by a march on Berlin. After the establishment of the totalitarian state, and after he had nearly 20 years for reflection on the lessons of the last war, Ludendorff set forth his conclusions as to future, totalitarian warfare. He opened with a heavy attack on the theories of Klauschwitz, which had been the foundation of the German doctrine in 1914. To Ludendorff, their fault was not that they went too far in the way of unlimited violence, regardless of cost,

but that they did not go far enough. He criticized Klauschwitz for allowing policy too much importance, not too little. As typical of Klauschwitz, he cited a passage concluding, the political goal is the end, and warfare is a means leading to it, and a means can never be thought of without a certain end. In Ludinorv's view, this was out of date. The totalitarian principle demanded that in war a nation should place everything at its service

and in peace at the service of the next war. War was the highest expression of the national will to live, and politics must therefore be subservient to the conduct of war. That's an interesting idea, right? It's just full nationalism. It's full conquering. It's war for war's sake almost. It's like a more pure form of war.

When you look at, I think what he's saying is that when you get politics involved, the strategy that would be used by the generals is often messed up. It's going to be, you're going to, as a general, you're not going to be able to implement the strategy of total destruction or winning the war once politics get its involved. and the problem there is that he's right and he's wrong. Politics do get involved and they do cause problems. And what he's missing is that the politicians, aka the bankers, they have an end. And it's not necessarily winning the war in the way a general would win it.

Right? Like that's one of the biggest, well, at least one of the biggest concerns that I have heard is that some generals, when talking about the Middle East, they say that there's no strategy to win. It's because we're not trying to win. Or our version of winning doesn't look like us going over there and taking over. The object of the war in the Middle East is to build a greater Israel. The object of the war in the Middle East is to privatize the resources to multiple multinational corporations, to build infrastructure, to build a new set of supply chains for the future. That's the purpose of the war in the Middle East.

It's not to spread democracy or free women from wearing hijabs. The purpose of that war is to create new supply chains. privatize the profits, socialize the losses, and to build a greater Israel in that region. And have it be the, have it, have it be its own project of manifest destiny for, for Israel, I believe that that's what's going on over there. And that's what the American forces are being used for. is a manifest destiny to clear out the indigenous people of that land. Reading Ludendorff's book, it became clear that the main difference between his theory and

Klauschwitz was that the former had come to think of war as a means without an end, unless making the nation into an army be considered an end in itself. This was hardly so new as Ludendorf appears. to imagine. Sparta tried it and in the end succumb to self-inflicted paralysis with the aim of developing the nation for war of creating a Super Sparta. Ludendorf's primary concern was to ensure the physical unity of the people. Towards this, he sought to cultivate a religion of nationalism through which all women would accept that their noblest role was to bear sons, to bear the burden of the totalitarian war, and all men would develop their powers for the purpose

in short to breed and to be bred for slaughter. The other positive suggestions which Ludendorf offered toward achieving psychical unity amounted to little more than the age-old prescription of suppressing everyone who might express or even entertained views contrary to those of the high command. Another, condition of which Ludendorff insisted was the need for a self-sufficient national economic system suited to the demands of the totalitarian war. From this, he appeared to realize that military power rests on an economic foundation. Yet curiously, when he dwelt on the crippling difficulties caused in the last war by the Allied blockade, he did not see how this admission.

reflected on his belief that wars are decided by battle between the armies. On this score, he considered that Germany's old master deserve praise. Klauschwitz only thinks of the annihilation of the hostile armies in battle. In Ludendorff's view, this remained an immutable principle, whereas in Hitler's original view, the true aim of a war leader should be to produce the capitulation of the hostile armies without a battle. Ludendorf's picture of the way that the next war would be waged was merely an intensified reproduction of the offensive he carried out in 1918, which had been brilliant in their opening but barren in their issue. For him, the offensive was still a battle process in which the infantry would be helped forward by artillery, machine guns,

mortars and tanks until it overwhelms the enemy in a man-to-man fight. All movements should lead to battle. Mechanization would merely quicken the rush to battle. It's an interesting point to think about there as well. When you close your eyes and you think about warfare now, or maybe if you play call to duty or any sort of the games in which you, you, what do they call that? when you simulate warfare, right?

Whenever you're simulating a warfare, is it, would you agree that the movement should lead to battle? Mechanization is a quick rush to battle. I think even today's youngest kids who are familiar with different type of war games, like they're creating different strategies, which is on a tangent here a little bit, isn't it interesting how that pretty much all children in the U.S. whether it's Fortnite or whatever game is big,

call to duty, it's all a simulation for warfare, right? It kind of goes back to the idea of Ludendorf just a little while ago talking about war as a means without an end. You know, making the nation into an army and, you know, ensuring that, ensuring unity, he thought to cultivate a religion of nationalism, through which all women would accept their noblest role and the men would accept their role to just be soldiers. In a way, the foundation of American boys is brought up on war.

That's it's in our blood. As much as we want to talk about nonviolence and as much as we want to say that you shouldn't, you know, there should be no violence. That's not what we teach. That's not what we teach at all. And sometimes it makes me think, like little boys are taught nonviolence. violence and a lot of their dads and a lot of their grandparents have been in war. So in a weird way, the educator speaks to the young child and tells him that his parents are wrong, right? That seems to be a weird dichotomy that children are being taught. Hey, don't be violent. Where's dad? He's in Iraq. What's he

doing over there? He's spreading democracy by killing all these people. You know, my dad was in Vietnam and I remember being told non-violence and and you know my dad's like that's ridiculous like sometimes you got to fight when you're a man so you get these young kids getting these mixed messages and I think it could be problematic it's kind of we're kind of off on a tangent but it's definitely something to think about it was not that Ludendorf had any moral or even soldierly objection to the more widely spread forms of warfare he remarked that the requirements of totalitarian warfare will ever ignore the cheap theoretical desire to abolish unrestricted U-boat warfare, while aircraft would in future combine with submarines at sinking every ship which tried to reach

the enemy's ports, even vessels sailing under neutral flags. Let me read that again. He remarked that the requirements of totalitarian warfare will ever ignore the cheap theoretical desire to abolish unrestricted U-Bort warfare, while aircraft would in future combine with submarines at sinking every ship, which tried to reach the enemy's ports, even vessels sailing under neutral flags. And in regard to the question of striking direct at the civil population, he emphasized that a time would come when bombing squadrons must inter exonerably and without pity be sent against them. Right, there's your demoralization. You're going to start taking out innocent people, then you're going to demoralize that population.

I think it's interesting prior in that paragraph, he talked about bombing every boat that went to the enemy's port, regardless of what flag they were flying. It just goes to show you that the false flag attack is something everyone is aware of, and that if you really want to make sure that there are no false flags, then you bomb every flag. But on military grounds, which for him were paramount, the Air Force must first be used to help in beating the opposing army.

Only then should it be unleashed against the interior of the opposing country. While welcoming every new weapon and instrument, he added them to his armory rather than fitted them into any grand strategic pattern. He conveyed no clear idea and seemed to have none on the relationship between the different elements in war. His message was, in brief, multiply every kind of force as much as you can, and you will get somewhere. But where? He neither wondered nor worried. The one point on which he was really clear was that the military commander-in-chief must lay down his instructions for the political leaders, and the latter must follow and fulfill them in service of war. In other words,

those who are responsible for national policy must give him a blank check drawn on the present resources of and future prosperity of the nation. Much as there was in common between Ludendorff and Hitler, in their conception of the race, the state, and the German people's right to dominate, their differences were quite as great, especially in regard to method. While Ludendorff demanded the absurd. that strategy should control policy, which is like saying the tool should decide its own task. Hitler solved that problem by combining the two functions in one person. Thus, he enjoyed the same

advantage as Alexander and Caesar in the ancient world or Frederick the Great and Napoleon in latter times. This gave him an unlimited opportunity such as no pure strategist would enjoy to prepare and develop his means for the end. he had in view. So he had both the strategy of the general and the political will of the government, because he was both. At the same time, he had early grasped what the soldier, by his very profession, is less ready to recognize that the military weapon is but one of the means that serve the purposes of war. one out of the assortment which grand strategy can employ. While there are many causes for which a state goes to war, its fundamental object can be epitomized as that of ensuring the continuance of its policy in face of the determination of the opposing state to pursue a contrary policy.

in the human will lies the source and mainspring of conflict. For a state to gain its object in war, it has to change this adverse will into compliance with its own policy. Once this is realized, the military principle of destroying the main armed forces on the battlefield, which Klauschwitz disciples exalted to a paramount position fits into its proper place along with the other instruments of grant strategy, which include the more oblique kinds of military action, as well as economic pressure, propaganda, and diplomacy. A lot of times you can see these strategies used in business, and a lot of times people say war is business, so it makes perfect sense.

You know, you have, like we talked about the U.S. going into Venezuela or the Middle East, we have economic pressure, then you have propaganda, and then you have diplomacy. And again, like I just, the more that I read about this strategy of warfare, the more that I read about propaganda, the more I begin to see it in our own country. It's kind of like, have you ever talked to a doctor that went to med school and they start reading about all these diseases? And then they start thinking they have all these diseases. It's kind of like you can see it here.

Like, is not COVID putting economic pressure on people? And is not the very definition of propaganda is to muddy the waters? Isn't that what's happening with what COVID is? There's so much propaganda about it. There's so much economic pressure about it. And then, you know, you're beginning to see the diplomacy in that like, okay, if you get the vaccine and you can go back to work. It's like they've problem reaction solution, right?

They've set this thing up, and then they're going to present you with a false choice. It could be because I've been reading a lot of this. However, I think you could really make a case that we are in some sort of war right now, be it against an invisible enemy, which it seems like we always are, right? Communism, terrorism, and now the flu or COVID or whatever it is. Back to the book. Instead of giving excessive emphasis to one means, which circumstances may render ineffective,

it is wiser to choose and combine whichever are the most suitable, most penetrative, and most conservative of effort, i.e., which will subdue the opposing will at the lowest war cost and minimum injury to the post-war prospect. For the most decisive victory

is of no value if a nation be bled white in gaining it. So that's why you see these different levels of sanctions being put on people. It's like you don't want to destroy the infrastructure. You don't want to destroy the people there. You just want to take it over. It should be the aim of grand strategy to discover and pierce the Achilles heel of the opposing government's power, to make war. And strategy in turn should seek to penetrate a joint in the harness of the opposing forces,

to apply one's strength where the opponent is strong, weakens oneself disproportionately to the effect attained. This next part is clutch. Listen to this. To strike with strong effect, one must strike at weakness. Let me say that again. To strike with strong effect, one must strike at weakness. If you're a small guy and you're going to fight a big guy,

you should probably kick him right in the nuts. If you're a woman and you're fighting a guy, you should probably kick him in the nuts. To strike with strong effect, one must strike at weakness. However, there's always this code of chivalry people talk about about a fair fight. It's never a fair fight.

A fair fight is something that professional fighters do. Right, that's a fair fight. Something with a referee in there, but a war is not a fair fight. relationships are not a fair fight. And if you're going to get enough fight in a parking lot, don't worry about fighting fair, especially if you're smaller.

Additionally, in conversations, how can you use some of these techniques in a conversation or a debate or how to solve a problem at work or in your daily life? You know, it should be your strategy to discover your opponent's Achilles heel. You know, to turn, in turn, you should, seek to penetrate a joint in the harness of the opposing forces. So I think a good way to think about that is when someone says something, if you're arguing or you're in a debate, you should be looking

for the logical fallacy. You should be trying to dismantle the argument at the weakest link. So is it possibly something he said, was it a straw man argument? Was it an appeal to authority? You know, was there a red herring in there somewhere? If you can listen for those particular logical fallacies, even though their entire argument may be better than yours, if you can point out the reasoning they're using is flawed logic, then you can probably turn that debate around and at least save face, in my opinion.

in my opinion. It is thus more potent, as well as more economical, to disarm the enemy than to attempt his destruction by hard fighting. For the mauling method entails not only a dangerous cost and exhaustion, but the risk that chance may determine the issue. A strategist should think in terms of paralyzing, not of killing. Even on the lower plane of warfare, a man killed is merely one man less, whereas a man unnerved is a highly infectious carrier of fear capable of spreading an epidemic or panic.

Okay, let's apply that to today. A strategist should think in terms of paralyzing, not of killing. What is COVID doing to our nation? What is COVID doing to the world? One way you can think about the riots in the streets and COVID in all. of what's going on is sometimes it's very difficult to see the problems in your relationship, in your culture. But all you need to do is just look at a different relationship or a different culture. And for this example, think about the students protesting in Taiwan. Does anyone really

think that the American CIA or the Americas, you know, I don't know what group would be doing. It's probably some FBI or CIA or some sort of funding. for instability. However, it's probably, it is clear to me anyways that funding is coming from our country to create instability in China. And that's what you see the students protesting. So if that is true, shouldn't it also be true or isn't it likely true that the BLM movement over here is getting funding from other countries? More than likely. More than likely. Right. And the propaganda about COVID is exactly the same, only different in that. Whereas a man unnerved, like even on a lower plane of warfare, a man killed is one man less.

However, whereas a man unnerved is a highly infectious carrier of fear capable of spreading an epidemic or panic. Isn't the panic of COVID worse than the actual side effects of COVID? like the fact that people are scared, the fear out there, that particular part of the COVID-19 is worse than the actual effects. It seems to me. It's having the strangling effects on our society

and the issues of that way. I'm going a little bit long here. I'm going to be about 40, about almost an hour on this one. So let me try to put a little bow on this here. to kind of tie it off and then we'll jump in tomorrow with some more. I want you to think about the keynote of the analysis of war. The analysis of war shows that while the nominal strength of a country is represented by its numbers and resources,

this muscular development is dependent on the state of its internal organs and nerve system. Upon its stability of control, morale, and supply. Direct pressure always tends to harden. and consolidate the resistance of an opponent. Like snow which is squeezed into a snowball, the more compact it becomes, the slower it is to melt. Alike in policy and in strategy, or to put it in another way,

in the strategy of both the diplomatic and the military spheres, the indirect approach is the most effective way to upset the opponent's balance. Psychological and physical, thereby making possible is overthrothed. The true purpose of strategy is to diminish the possibility of resistance. The true purpose of strategy is to diminish the possibility of resistance. The true purpose of strategy is to diminish the possibility of resistance.

You guys got it? Pretty interesting, right? We can learn a lot from the great wars that were fought before us. We can learn a lot about how we can act in our daily lives by watching the physical war. of the past. I hope you use this power and these strategies to make your life better instead of hurting people. I know some of you guys out there. I love you. In fact, I love all of you. And just think about who you want to be and what you need to do to get there. Use the strategies that have been waged successfully in the past to better your lives. All right? Aloha, my friends. I love you.